Posted on 02/22/2010 9:47:13 PM PST by restornu
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Excellent rules to avoid the normal name-calling in other forums.
>a deceptive lie or statement of shear stupidity.
So... we’re not wool-gathering?
{That should be sheer.}
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shear
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sheer
Like your tagline you can have all of my errors!:)
The actual words in a given translation of the Bible aren’t infallible; the spiritual truths they convey, are. Those really don’t vary from translation to translation.
Why is it so hard to be cordail and still express your opinion?
Why not think of it this way is that the Lord is standing near by during your discussion.
Fixed it for you...is that was was meant? Just curious.
I don’t know Prof Emanuel Tov you might want to write him!
He was one of the editors of the Hebrew University Bible Project. He is a member of the editorial board of the journal Dead Sea Discoveries, and served on the Academic committee of the Magnes Press.
Co-founder and chairman (1991-2000) of the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation. Member of the Academic Committee of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Senior Associate Fellow, Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies. [4]
From 1990-2009 he served as the Editor-in-Chief of the international Dead Sea Scrolls Publication Project, which during those years produced 32 volumes of the series Discoveries in the Judean Desert as well as two concordances [5].
He also published a CD containing editions of all the non-biblical Qumran scrolls and a six-volume printed edition of the scrolls meant for the general public. [6]
Emanuel Tov is married to Lika (née Aa). They have three children
Seriously? But you will still use whatever portion of scripture of the Old and New Testament, when convenient?
Well, how convenient.
Aren’t you really invalidating your claim to the Bible, in any way, as it is so flawed. As such, how can it be trusted for it’s integrity.
Said integrity, is a perspective of subjective view and a foundation of baked bread which can easily be eaten by the birds or washed away in the tide.
What is your point? Really? Your answer is important as it is for posterity, so be sincere and introspect.
Sorry for the last paragraph, they are incongruent with your values, which shift like dunes in the Sahara.
Don’t mean to be so rough, but you really can’t have it both ways and still continue proudly claim your Christian-Lite Heritage.
Your link does not work.
As you probably know, the LDS religion depends on the theory of grave error in the New Testament, not the Old.
I'm just not seeing how this article is not being "slipped" in as being anti-integrity of Holy Scripture. Why should a healthy, open debate on this subject not be permitted? It is offensive to me, especially the last paragraph. Am I being too sensitive?
NO ONE can be held in esteem as an author above God! It’s HIS Word to us and HE’S Almighty. If anyone thinks that HE IS NOT CAPABLE of getting HIS Truth to us accurately is living in pride.
Go ahead, who ever your are - take the fall!
You are being antagonistic. If you wish to discuss the issues in an “open” Religion Forum format, then find a similar article and post it that way.
Don’t mean to be so rough...
No problem your original persona has worn off by now...
BTW you are on an ecumenical thread might read up on it!
Most of the words in the article are of a Prof Tov
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2457262/posts?page=11#11
This is typical for Lindsay. Trust me on this.
Not sure why you felt the need to post about Prof Emanuel Tov, his titles, and what he is a member of, etc., etc. . Is it that you are impressed by ‘man’ and want others to be, also?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.